On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
Defeating fragmentation attacks requires more than a BCP.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-dnsop-defeat-frag-attack-00
Sure, so you have an RFC already then. great. No need for a flag day
event reference, as you will have a proper RFC
Peace,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 7:17 AM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The DNS 2019 not only had ON THE DAY changes (thanks to Google changing
> > their 8.8.8.8 service on the day)
>
> So even pumping up the hype didn't actually help inform the people that
>
> On 3 Jul 2019, at 2:16 pm, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> Defeating fragmentation attacks requires more than a BCP.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andrews-dnsop-defeat-frag-attack-00
>
> Sure, so you have an RFC already then. great. No need
Dear colleagues,
This message starts the Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale/).
Since this draft has not been recently discussed in the WG, we figure people
might need to swap it back in, and we will be
On Jul 2, 2019, at 6:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> First, there have been several IPR disclosures against this document. The
> chairs believe all have been resolved.
Please clarify what "The chairs believe all have been resolved" means in this
context. There are seven IPR statements on the
Hi all,
The IETF105 Agenda is out
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/agenda.html and DNSOP has two
sessions
Monday 18:10-19:10 Monday Afternoon session III
Tuesday 10:00-12:00 Tuesday Morning session I
As with the previous IETF meeting, we are planning the shorter (1 hour),
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is
time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal to
everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
I agree with moving DLV to historic. It is no
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
> to
> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
Agreed. Kill it with fire!
___
DNSOP mailing
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>
>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
>> to
>> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
>
> Agreed. Kill it with
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:13 AM Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
> question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
> code. Almost everyone was okay with that.
>
> So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in
+1 to all of that which follows!
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 14:41, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
>> So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is
>> time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal to
>> everyone that it
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 6:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> First, there have been several IPR disclosures against this document. The
>> chairs believe all have been resolved.
>
> Please clarify what "The chairs believe all have been resolved"
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 21.31, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>
>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
>> to
>> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
>
> Agreed. Kill it with fire!
>
fine by me.
Get BlueMail for Android
On 2 Jul 2019, 13:11, at 13:11, Dan York wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 2, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking
>wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a
>clear signal to
> On 3 Jul 2019, at 12:31 am, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Petr Špaček wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify that we (as DNS flag day organizers) are not even
>> touching any RFC language because all the necessary pieces are already
>> standardized (madatory TCP support + mechanism to
I strongly support moving it to Historic.
Regards,
-drc
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
> question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
> code. Almost everyone was
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Petr Špaček wrote:
Let me clarify that we (as DNS flag day organizers) are not even
touching any RFC language because all the necessary pieces are already
standardized (madatory TCP support + mechanism to handle EDNS buffer size).
If there is a security issue with
Hi,
A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
code. Almost everyone was okay with that.
So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is
time to move the protocol to Historic
18 matches
Mail list logo
